Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54
Appeal by Russavia[edit]
| Russavia (talk · contribs)'s topic ban is lifted from aviation and diplomacy articles. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Statement by Russavia[edit]Since 10 September 2009, I have been under a broadly-construed "Russia topic ban". I accept responsibility for my edits, and I hope that the community will understand that my "wikistress" had been unacceptably high at that time, and I may have come across as combative. I sincerely do want to be part of a collegial project, with the aim of producing an encyclopaedia, and want to rid Wikipedia of the battleground mentality as much as anyone else. A proposed remedy at the recent WP:EEML arbcom, whilst it didn't pass, has given me some encouragement to "appeal" to the community in relation to my topic ban. Since I have been under the "Russia" topic ban, I have been working on numerous articles, and the following is a list of those which are my major expansions/new articles since then, and which have appeared at DYK.
Articles I am working on, in various stages of development, include:
Given that my editing of aviation and diplomacy related articles is not a problem, as far as I am aware, I would like to ask that the topic ban that I am currently under which precludes me from editing anything on the Soviet Union, and its now independent constituent republics, be narrowed to allow me to edit and include information into articles related to Russian/Soviet aviation and Russian diplomacy (ambassadors, diplomatic missions, bilateral relations), whilst leaving the rest of the topic ban in place. I recognise that my behaviour was inappropriate, I take responsibility for and apologise for it, and recognise that the sanction was meant to be coercive rather than punitive. As I mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_4#On_Proposed_Remedy_12_and_the_sanctioned_editors_from_the_other_side, I will not "officially" proceed with this appeal until 2 or 3 admins feel that I would be able to edit within the confines of restrictions, so I guess bringing this here is part of fulfilling my own words. Apart from that, I am not too sure what else I need to address, so I am only too happy to answer anything that may be asked of me. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Response to Sandstein/Henrik/et al[edit]In relation to the Air Guinée article, and the issue raised at WP:ANI, this was an honest oversight on my behalf. I had been working on the article in question at User:Russavia/Guinee, and due to an IRC conversation which was had with User:NuclearWarfare (and others), in which he said it would be ok to include the names of aircraft, etc, I still did not want to do that, and worked on this article in order to show within this request how difficult it can be for me to able complete articles under topic ban. I didn't check the article before or after placing it into namespace nor before doing the DYK. I am currently working on around 20 different airline article expansions, and it was Air Bissau which I meant to update in namespace and do the DYK for. It was completely an oversight on my behalf in this instance, my apologies. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Response re: diplomacy articles[edit]I have created and expanded many of the bilateral relations of Russia articles. Examples of these include Kuwait–Russia relations, Russia–Swaziland relations and User:Russavia/Australia–Russia relations (this one is not yet in namespace). I would welcome editors review those articles, and they can see that they are for the most part WP:NPOV - this is something that I strive for in all of my editing, no matter what the subject. I was also the editor in question who expanded Russia – South Ossetia relations on 5 August 2009. This was done by myself in order to have the article appear at WP:DYK in time for the first year anniversary of the war in South Ossetia. This particular article was put thru a somewhat disruptive AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia – South Ossetia relations in what editors, including myself, thought was an attempt to keep it off the front page at DYK. I would urge editors to review this article for themselves, and they will see that I have included views in the article from those who oppose this particular relationship; i.e. I try to write in an NPOV-way as possible. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comment for Henrik[edit]Many of the articles I work on are on subjects that are of "little" interest on WP. By this I mean, instead of editing and working on Qantas, I will instead work on and expand articles with lesser followings, such as say Air Botswana or Air Malawi (and those articles I have linked to above in my initial appeal post). The same goes for many of the diplomacy articles I work on - Russian diplomacy, whilst important on the world stage, is not covered very well on Wikipedia - a sad fact yes, and most of the articles I work on in this area, I do so alone. In addition to the articles linked to above, other examples are Consulate-General of France in Saint Petersburg, Embassy of Germany in Saint Petersburg, Konstantin Umansky, and most of the articles at User:Russavia/articles - that last link hasn't been updated since 2008 only due to the sheer number of articles I have created in this area, and they are generally articles that I work on alone. It is primarily these areas that my interests lay, and generally speaking I am the only editor working in such areas. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein[edit]From what I recall, I originally imposed a more limited topic ban, and then widened it after it seemed to me that Russavia was aggressively wikilawyering about the original scope of the ban, as well as violating it. This would make re-limiting the ban appear ill-advised. But this is an exceptionally (for AE standards) well-reasoned and encouraging request, and I have no reason to doubt that Russavia means what he says. While I have not systematically followed his editing since imposing the ban, I am not aware of any major editing drama he has since been involved in. For these reasons, and also because new sanctions can easily be imposed in the event of new disruption, I am not in principle opposed to granting this appeal and limiting the ban as proposed by Russavia. But as I said in the most recent (long and frequently incivil) ANI discussion about this topic ban, I am also not opposed to the sanction being lifted or superseded by any other uninvolved administrator acting on their own discretion and taking responsibility for supervising Russavia's subsequent conduct, so I'm leaving the decision in the hands of my colleagues. Sandstein 22:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the appeal by Russavia[edit]Comment by Vecrumba[edit]I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions outside the portrayal of the Soviet legacy (political, historical, current events involving the official Russian position,...). As Russavia recognizes their egregious behavior leading to and particularly in reaction to their topic ban, I see little purpose in a ban which prevents Russavia from contributing in areas where they have consistently produced positive and informative content. I would still consider certain items pertaining to the Soviet legacy, e.g., Australia-Russia relations which discusses the short-lived recognition of Baltic annexation by the Whitlam government (actually, a personal decision by Whitlam made without consultation), to be part of the topic ban. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by MisterWiki[edit]I think that the Russavia's ban is bizarre and unfair. The user has a lot of info related to Russia and I am against this ban. --MW talk contribs 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Martintg[edit]Russavia is asking for the topic ban to be narrowed to allow him to edit Russian/Soviet aviation and Russian diplomacy topics. He has made some good contributions to the Russian/Soviet aviation topic space and Russian diplomacy generally. On the other hand, certain areas of Russian diplomacy like Russia/South Ossetia/Georgia and Russia/Estonia relations may remain hot buttons for him. However since Russavia's topic ban is due to expire in March anyway, I have no problem with Russavia's topic ban being relaxed, so long as he voluntarily refrains from editing certain Russian diplomacy topics like Russia-South Ossetia relations or Estonian-Russian relations. --Martin (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Offliner[edit]I do not completely understand where Russavia's topic ban extension came from; many users thought it was a harsh decision. I have not seen any problematic edits by Russavia in these two topic areas (diplomatic relations and aviation), in which he has also created a significant amount of new content. I also have not seen any problematic edits by him in the last few months in general. Offliner (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Varsovian[edit]I don't want to go into the rights or wrongs of Russavia's topic ban extension but I would like to say that I've had a look thru his editing for the last couple of months and it does seem that he makes useful and positive contributions to the areas he is asking to be allowed to edit. He has also made an extremely well-written and reasoned request. On that basis I would very much support the two-month trial unban mentioned below by NuclearWarfare.Varsovian (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Mjroots[edit]I do not believe that it was necessary for Russavia to censor words like Soviet Union or Ilyushin when expanding the Air Guinée article. This was raised at WP:ANI. Can we be clear here that there is no need to censor these terms when they are legitimately part of an article. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Question from Triplestop[edit]Russavia, you have many good edits to aviation related articles. However, these are relatively uncontroversial subjects. Per the concerns raised by Martin above, how can we be sure that you can edit harmoniously in more controversial areas? Triplestop x3 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Bwilkins[edit]The intent of the ban was not to prevent the usage of the words "Soviet Union". There was a scope of topics that were at issue, and although the term "broadly construed" might have been used, the 2 words themselves were not at issue. Russavia is fully able to edit hockey, soccer, airline, etc articles involving the words "Soviet Union", except where they intersect with the topics covered by the ban. Forcing others to do extra work by using ***** instead of the real words is not a good editing practice, and was obviously not the intent of the ban. Diplomacy-related topics may be getting too close politically-charged issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Ezhiki[edit]I was strongly against Russavia's ban (either in its original form or in its current, broader form) last fall, and I still believe that lifting the ban would be a good decision. If lifting it is not possible, I am at least lodging my support for this easement. This topic ban does nothing except preventing Russavia from contributing good-quality content. I foresee no disruption resulting from the relaxing of the topic ban.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, January 15, 2010 (UTC) Comment by Biophys[edit]I support lifting all bans for Russavia and all other editors involved in EEML case. Few people edit in this area and project suffers.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Henrik[edit]If writing Ilyushin Il-14 is in violation of a ban, so is Il****** I*-14. If writing Soviet Union is a violation, so is S****t U****. From a topic ban perspective, they are equivalent. I'll award one point for creativity, but I would take a very dim view of anyone else trying that same stunt in the future. I would hope Russavia can offer an extremely good rationale for this very pointy action. henrik•talk 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by The Four Deuces[edit]Since the EEML case has shown an ongoing attempt to have Russavia banned, I think that actions by Russavia from that time should be forgotten. It must have been traumatic for him to have had a dozen people who wrote hundreds of e-mails back and forth about him. He should be judged only by subsequent actions. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by John Z[edit]I did a little work a while ago on Russian diplomatic articles and came in contact with Russavia. I also explored the circumstances of and argued against the topic ban just before the EEML mess. I believe the ban was agreed then to have been confusingly worded at first. I think he is a good editor, working largely alone in some important areas, and a real asset to Wikipedia. I accept his explanation above for the Air Guinée edits referred to in the ANI thread - I don't think that kind of pointiness would be his style. Relaxing and eventually removing the ban should have completely positive effects.John Z (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Alex Bakharev[edit]I have monitored development of many articles edited by Russavia and tried to resolve a few conflicts connected with them. Based on my experience I should say that Russavia is an extremely valuable editor. He has very deep knowledge on aviation topics especially Russian aviation and Russian diplomacy. He is also reasonably informed in wide area of other topics involving Russia and the Soviet Union. He is very active as an editor volunteering tens of hours of work per week (he was even a subject of a unique checkuser request: somebody suspected that he is not a single person but a collective of users). Russavia has been doing a lot of wikignoming work for WP:Russia project. Unlike many editors working with Eastern European topics he is a native English speaker with a good command of the language. In short his banning from Russia-related topics is a very significant loss for Russia project and probably for the whole en:Wiki development. I also guess it is strong and unfair embarrassment for a good and devoted contributor. As I said before Russavia has a long history of non-controversial contributions. He also has a better than the mainstream opinion about Soviet and modern Russian government and sometimes he likes to show that some Cold War era and modern stereotypes are not entirely correct. Often it is useful: his edits fix the bias and offer additional less know facts. Sometimes it also lead to some pretty dramatic conflicts especially if on the other side are editors determine to show the stupid left-leaning westerners the truth covered by Soviet propaganda. Those conflicts lead to mutual incivilities, edit warring and other drama. We know from the EEML arbcom that some otherwise good editors coordinated their efforts to harass and provoke Russavia and eventually that led to his banning from Eastern European topics entirely. During his ban Russavia behaved reasonably well. If the decision was mine I would take my chances and lift Russavia ban but I would allow uninvoled admins or admins that are active in Russia project (like myself and Ezhiki) to ban Russavia from narrow defined topics (e.g. from Soviet Story and related articles) whether his contributions would appear to be unhelpful or cause unnecessary drama. Alternatively we can significantly narrow Russavia's ban. E.g. ban him from history of Baltic states and from Russian apartment bombings, Alexander Litvinenko and related articles. It covers most of the conflicts with Russavia's participation. including those that were the reason for Russavia's ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Russavia[edit]
Not a result, but more ground rules setting, I'd like the following:
--Tznkai (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Simonm223[edit]
| Simonm223 (talk · contribs) restricted to one revert per week to pages or content related to Falun Gong for six months. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Simonm223[edit]
Discussion concerning Simonm223[edit]Statement by Simonm223[edit]Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a vandal who persistently makes mass edits to the Falun Gong articles with substantial damage to the neutrality therein. I will provide diffs momentarily. HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is an admitted member of the religion and although not a vandal does tend to protect the vandalism of the former user. My reverts on the FLG article have been restoring the consensus version of the article. I do now WP:OWN the article however neither does the FLG. This arbitration request is merely an attempt by FLG proponents to block me from editing so that they can revert to a non-neutral version. They have already chased out one other editor with their tendentuous editing tactics. The burden does not lie on me to justify reverting persistent vandalism. I hereby request that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) be topic banned. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Ok here is the most recent mass change made by Asdfg: [36] This constitutes 21 independent edits to the article by Asdfg, all without intervening editorial input. Every edit removes critical information or incorporates pro-FLG bias. He then goes to the talkpage and posts textwalls, insisting that his edits be addressed point by point. This is his standard MO and has repeated many times.Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Here Asdfg reverts to his preferred version after Colipon (talk · contribs) reverts one of his mass edits. He insists Colipon address his edits point by point. He is promptly reverted by Enric_Naval (talk · contribs) [37] [38] [39] Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC) In this case Asdfg's edits are reverted by Colipon again: [40] As you can see with this difference link the version that Colipon reverted to was the same one that I reverted to prior to. [41] Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) In this case Asdfg's edits were reverted by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). [42] Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Compare Asdfg's edit history to mine: [43] [44] as you can see he is essentially an SPA, I am not. Now, addressing the request by Sandstein, I appologize but I am a bit irate. I am getting attacked for Calling an SPA who constantly reverts good edits to POV nonsense a vandal.. What I have been trying to demonstrate is that my actions are not different from those of most of the other active editors on the article, excepting the fact I use the word "Vandalism." I have not violated WP:3RR I have not edited contrary to established consensus. The closest I've come to violating WP:CIVIL is calling Asdfg a vandal - which the information I've provided demonstrates him to be! Basically I find this complaint to be not only baseless but ludicrous and offensive. What I want to know is why I must defend myself for protecting neutrality on Wikipedia from the actions of people with clear conflicts of interest and major axes to grind! Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Simonm223[edit]Simonm223, please stop editing your statement continually. Think about what you want to say and then say it all at once. Also, please amend your statement to address your own conduct as described by HappyInGeneral. If you request action about the conduct of another user, please make a separate request on this page or another appropriate forum about that other user. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [edit]The Falun Gong article has been seeing persistent POV pushing that keeps happening by two editors with a COI: Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345. They have kept trying to remove all criticism from FG articles and inserting anything that could possibly make FG look good. Other editors have to keep reverting them, and discussions become all convoluted with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. Sandstein, punishing Simonm223 is completely wrong, when he was just trying to preserve the balance in the FG articles. The opposite should be done: topic banning Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345 from FG articles, so other editors don't have to keep reverting the bleedingly obvious POV pushing. My last complain was at Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts, when Asdfg12345 keeps trying to place the burden of proof in other editors. I was quite annoyed by the constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour at Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan, where editors keep playing silly and pretending that they don't understand why other editors oppose them. The Arbcom dropped the ball big time when they failed to ban Asdfg12345 here and HappyInGeneral here and here The behaviour of these editors has not improved at all since then, and it's obvious that the mediation by Vassanya at Talk:Falun Gong is not working at all. That they are now trying to get other editors topic banned is outrageous, and it will only help to them to remove all criticism from FG articles. Again, topic ban Happyingeneral and Asdfg12345 and let's end the ridiculously blatant POV pushing that has been going on for months. Do I neek to make a request for amendement at the Arbcom page, or can an admin enact restrictions on these two accounts using the probation? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC) P.D.: OK, so this need a separate request. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Colipon[edit]Imposing a 'topic ban' on Simon223 would be a grave mistake. Here we have two single-purpose accounts (formerly four), Asdfg and HappyInGeneral, who have made it their life's work to make the Falun Gong articles appear as favourable to Falun Gong as possible. Simon is but one of a few brave souls on this encyclopedia who is willing to step up and treat this blatant POV-pushing for what it is. Simon's conduct is within the realm of any neutral editor who has grew tired of lengthy Falun Gong advocacy. The spirit of WP:AFLG was to prevent POV-pushing and disruptive editing on Falun Gong articles. Simon not only did not violate the spirit of the arbitration but in fact is trying to uphold it. We see that during Simon's involvement on the articles, the POV-pushing and disruptive editing has only come from Falun Gong SPA users, and Simon was merely trying to remedy this imbalance. Indeed, if Simon ought to be banned for his actions, it implies that all other neutral editors who have reverted Falun Gong POV-pushing edits also ought to be banned. Make no mistake - unlike the Falun Gong users, Simon is not an SPA, and has no activist agenda at the expense of this encyclopedia. Like myself, Ohconfucius, Enric Naval, and various other users, Simon is an outside observer who at one point got tired of SPA abuse on these articles and decided to step up and do something about it. The reason Simon has become more aggressive with reverts is not because he did not try to engage in civil discussion, but because repeated calls for civil discussion has only led to persistent wikilawyering from Asdfg and repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Asdfg asks for discussion and then rehashes the same tired arguments that have been brought down by almost all neutral observers. (All the discussions are available at the Falun Gong talk page, one read through and it will be clear that it is Asdfg that should be banned). Colipon+(Talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Asdfg12345[edit]The pages are complicated, the issues are complicated. It doesn't do to cast such generalities. The main issues with Simon is that he doesn't discuss anything, makes a lot of accusations, and is really revert happy. All bad things. Colipon, in my view, misrepresents much of the situation. Basically, the proof is in the pudding--the pudding of edits, sources, and discussion. And whenever things should actually get down to that business, what happens instead is the above: accusations, generalised complaints, etc. etc. I just hope the people evaluating this look at the evidence and are not swayed by (what appears to me as, at this point) the invective. The case that brought all this to a head kind of epitomises the whole thing: I made a series of edits, numbered them all, expanded on the edit summary when necessary, and invited discussion. Simon reverted the whole lot and called me a vandal. Still no one has actually responded to the issues.--Asdfg12345 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]There are frequent edit wars which are initiated by Falun Gong practitioner HappyInGeneral ('Happy') and asdfg12345 {'asdfg'). I have made a substantial number of edits recently to Falun Gong articles, and have also been frustrated to see some of them being reverted by Happy (mainly), on some flimsy justification that I have removed sourced material (as if sourcing somehow renders relevant something which is impertinent). I find many of his accusations somewhat disingenuous because it is well documented by academics (Palmer, Ownby, Kavan, Ostergaard) that Falun Gong are extremely sensitive to criticism and practitioners will step up to its defence as part of their mission. Here, they (the FLG SPAs) use all manner of arguments in an attempt to win content dispute. For example, one of the edits Happy complains of above is exactly that - claims something Simon supports as being OR when it is backed up by a peer-reviewed academic paper (Heather Kavan's article). Other times, he removes text which is unflattering to Falun Gong because it is 'not sourced', and not because it is not sourceable but because he cannot be bothered to find a source (and there are usually plenty) which justifies a position or wording he does not like. Sure, the onus is on the one inserting material to source it, so a {{cn}} tag is much less provocative than a revert. This AE case is a bit of a time-waster in that it has obliged me to spend this morning analysing all the points of contention than doing other things. Nevertheless, I will go through the edit summaries and comment on these:
I see that a case has been opened up against asdfg below, so I'll keep it brief here. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by HappyInGeneral (1)[edit]Just out of curiosity since the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior was mentioned before, could you please provide a diff/link something what topic did I conveniently refused "... to acknowledge others' input or their own error"? Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Seb: I'm not sure that I fully understand what you say here: "since when does writing lengthy edit-summaries (as Asdfg does) and creating a fait accompli serve in lieu of discussion?" but I would think that if anyone is genuinely does his best to engage in rational discussion, with the sources on the table, rather then just muscle his way forth, then that is the correct way and then it is possible to improve this encyclopedia. Do you think any other wise? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC) There is a more complete statement from me here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_HappyInGeneral_2. Just for keeping stuff in one place. It's more neat that way. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Seb az86556[edit]Something's odd... since when does writing lengthy edit-summaries (as Asdfg does) and creating a fait accompli serve in lieu of discussion? Can anyone and everyone now take that as an excuse to change the meaning of any article, and then take the "reverter" to ArbCom. Beats me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Mrund[edit]I am secure in the conviction that if Simonm223 should be found guilty of any behaviour worth banning him for a time, then it will be easy to get perennial FG propagandists Asdfg and HiG permanently topic-banned. We got rid of the Chinese government propagandists some time back, so we need to finish the job. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by PCPP[edit]I fail to find any merit in this case, considering that Simon largely reverted the undiscussed changes made by Happy and Asdfg to earlier versions. Most of the edits by Asdfg and Happy violates WP:NPOV and failed to reach concensus with the other regular editors, so why should Simon be singled out? Unlike the two FLG activists, Simon is not a SPA and have in fact edited other articles constructively, and as such I find associating him with the long term abuses by Happy and Asdfg, and issuing a blanket ban, to be unwarranted.--PCPP (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Simonm223[edit]
I have reviewed the evidence provided and find the request to have merit. The edits listed at (1) and (2) are numerous reverts of what is labeled "vandalism" (e.g. [45]), whereas in fact the reason for the revert appears to be a disagreement about the content. Per WP:VAND, vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", and it is not at all clear how the content reverted would be such an attempt. Moreover, Simonm223's talk page contributions indicate that he has made no good faith attempt at finding consensus with his revert opponent(s) during the period of time covered by the reverts. The edits listed at (3) to (8) do not contain very much that is actionable apart from that; in particular, the "Mass killings" article is out of the scope of the cited arbitration case. If discretionary sanctions were available here, I'd impose a one revert per week restriction, but the operative remedy, WP:AFLG#Article probation, imposes article probation, which only allows editors to be banned from a topic. For these reasons, unless other admins disagree, I intend to impose a six month topic ban from Falun Gong and related topics on Simonm223 for edit-warring and other disruptive editing. I'd probably be inclined to lift the ban after a month or two of entirely problem-free editing in other topic areas. This does not mean that the revert opponent(s) of Simonm223 may not also have engaged in disruptive conduct, but if they have, that should be made the subject of a separate request, as noted above. Sandstein 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Asdfg12345[edit]
| Asdfg12345 topic-banned from Falun Gong and related topics for six months. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Asdfg12345[edit]
Talk: Falun Gong is full of comments where Asdfg12345 keeps having a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour, playing silly at why other editors are so pised off at his constant POV pushing. He also places the burden of proof in editors. by making bold reverts and then insisting that other editors show him wrong when he gets reverted, point by point. Now he has the nerve of asking that he is not reverted again, at Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts Examination of the edits since I have started watching Falun Gong has led me to be convinced that this is ridiculously blatant POV pushing, and that this could not possibly be based on good faith misunderstandings. Asdfg12345 has exhausted the patience and good faith of other editors to the point where, in the last weeks, the other editors have finally resorted to blanket reverting the bleedingly obvious POV pushing that Asdfg12345 has been trying to insert into Falun Gong. He them complained Talk:Falun_Gong#Stopping_blanket_reverts It's our fault for believing that we could handle this matter without having to go into lenghty arbitration. Two years ago the Arbcom was not capable of deciding that Asdfg12345 was edit warring, in this finding of act The behaviour of Asdfg12345 has not improved at all since then, he has been becoming bolder and more demanding with his reverts, and it's obvious that the mediation by Vassanya at Talk:Falun Gong is not working at all. Asdfg12345 was issued a final warning just a few days after the Falun Gong case closed [90]. His behaviour has not improved at all, yet he was only blocked for 48 hours. Ever since then he keeps coming back once in a while, making a POV pushing edit and then disappearing for a few days. Never breaking 3RR, many times not making reverts but instead going back to the same issues weeks later and in slightly different edits, which is probably why he wasn't blocked again. In other words: slowly edit-warring variations of the same POV. There have also been two separate section in the conflic of interest noticeboard here here, which had exactly zero usefulness in solving the problem. Many editors have been piling up complaints against Asdfg12345, like Bobby Fletcher here. Almost every single edit by Asdfg12345 has been to Falun Gong related articles, see his edit count [91]. In short, Asdfg12345 is a disruptive POV-pushing SPA with A COI, who has failed to keep a NPOV stance for years. He has exhausted patience and good faith from other editors (except HappyInGeneral, who seem to be part of a team), and the FG articles will be much better without him. P.D.: I have added diffs of violating edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Asdfg12345[edit]Statement by Asdfg12345[edit]Hi. I'd be happy to respond to the points above at greater length, here's something short. haven't meant to do anything wrong, and in the end, I don't understand the accusations. I mostly edit Falun Gong articles because I'm most interested in the topic, and don't have the luxury of having a lot of leisure time where I can edit wikipedia. So in the time I have, I have been spending it on this topic. I know I should branch out and be more active, and I am kinda trying, I just get busy with real life and two jobs. I also want to edit a wide variety of China articles. Even so, I don't see anything wrong with editing mainly Falun Gong articles. I've dabbled with other things. In any case, I think my edits in this area should be evaluated on their own terms, in the context in which they were made, and in the way any edit would. I've done my best to engage in discussion with everyone, been scrupulous in my sourcing, and have attempted to make the articles conform to WP:NPOV (Enric Naval obviously has a different view, and I'd be happy to either give a general response, or discuss specific edits). I don't see what rule I have broken, and I am definitely not editing in bad faith. I think there might be a flaw in the reasoning Enric writes above, though. Simply adding information that is positive about Falun Gong, or removing information that is negative about Falun Gong, doesn't particularly mean anything. What if it was positive information in the context of a section showing third party reception to Falun Gong's teachings? Or, where a number of academics concur on some point, and it happens to be positive, but also helps the reader understand the issue? And what if the negative information is unsourced, poorly sourced, wrongly placed in the article, or a kind of original synthesis? I don't see how positive/negative are the most useful categories per se. And for sure I have added negative stuff and removed positive stuff--do I need to find examples? Or make some? This may not even be the most useful criteria, because it would be easy to do such edits in a showy kind of way--no real substance, but parading anti-Falun Gong credentials. In particular, often other editors take care of the anti-Falun Gong perspective. I'm capable of "writing for the enemy," but most of the time it's already been done. And I'm definitely not trying to come here and do pro-Falun Gong propaganda. A lot of the time my edits are neither pro or anti, and I don't even think that that's the most useful way of conceptualising things anyway. As I say, I've done my best to explain all edits I've made, encourage discussion, add referenced material, and whatever else I can think of. In the latest instance that caused this commotion, I explained and numbered each edit and made a space on the talk page to discuss them all. I thought that would reduce disputes and make the paper trail very clear. On other occasions I had asked for discussion, but ad-hominem, rather than the issue at hand, was the only thing forthcoming. So I certainly then started asking that people discuss things and not just do a one hit revert. I don't know, but maybe Enric just does not like it? I'm not here to make enemies, by any means. I have repeatedly requested that any problems with my edits be explained in terms of wikipedia policy, and tried to be as transparent as possible in my edits, sources, and explanations. Anything further, please let me know. PS: Regarding Bobby Fletcher, see this. --Asdfg12345 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC) PPS: Regarding the Luo Gan thing, see here. Unfortunately, this does seem a bit typical of how the discussions go. Not all the time.--Asdfg12345 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Update: Sandstein (or someone), can you please advise whether I should look carefully at the examples Enric provides and give a response? I can make it brief. I have a suspicion that some things may not be exactly as portrayed (that response was so expected, right? In some cases, I could well be wrong though.)--Asdfg12345 12:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Update 2: looking again, I think there's some things I should respond to. Can I have 12 hours? It's late here, and I can do it before lunchtime tomorrow.--Asdfg12345 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Response to Sandstein[edit]Hello, thanks. Since I guess you just looked at the situation, thought about it, and came up with what seems like a reasonable response, I would like to offer you more food for thought. The following are just some questions and thoughts. I hope they are useful. On NPOV[edit]How could it be shown that I'm dedicated to showing Falun Gong in a positive light, rather than "balancing a negative POV," for example? I think I should get a chance to dispute this, or at least see how the decision was arrived at. I acknowledge that many contributions recently could be interpreted in this way, but when we are talking about balancing an existing POV, then doing so would be totally correct by wiki standards. I've added a lot of critical stuff, previously, but mostly find it's already been taken care of. I’d just like to know the way this conclusion was arrived at, what the information sources are, and the different factors (like, the context, other editors, what’s on the pages already, etc.) My purpose for editing the Falun Gong articles is in line with wikipedia's content policies--it is to make the pages conform to those policies. Is there evidence that I have not done so? If, (let's do the hypothetical), there was lots of criticism already, and I only added positive content (I'm simplifying it terribly here for the sake of argument), then adding that would be NPOV, wouldn't it. And if they weren't adding negative info, I'd have done it, at least in part. So I’m trying to get clear on how this side of things is worked out. Every single person editing the pages has their own point of view of the subject, and their editing will inevitably reflect it. The keys to balance this are just sources, and discussion. When we are talking about people who are just unreasonable and won’t discuss, that’s a big problem, but as far as I know, I’ve been neither. I even got a barnstar once for being humorous in times of great tension. On comparisons with other editors[edit]Do Colipon, Ohconfucius, Simon223 etc. have to show they put pro-Falun Gong information in? Is the context of our editing environment being taken into account at all? Do I need to make more edits that include criticism of Falun Gong, what is the threshold, and how is "criticism" defined? Also, is it being considered that other editors in question add almost only (what I'll define as) negative content? Should this meet with sanction? Do I need to show the enormous amount of deleting of content related to the persecution of Falun Gong, all sourced to academic journals? I have never deleted large swathes of properly sourced content like that simply because I think it’s critical of Falun Gong. I of course would say I try to make the pages NPOV, like they do, I’m sure, but if you look at the edits you’ll find a pattern opposite to mine: mostly negative. This isn’t actually the problem. The problem is when discussion breaks down and people don’t engage in it seriously. If you handed the pages over to Ohconfucius and I, they would probably end up looking quite reasonable after a while. You have proposed the same ban for me as Simon, but is there a genuine parity? I mean, look at his edits. Some of them are outrageous. I’ve never done anything like that, I wouldn’t even dream of it. I mean, I’m actually trying to edit intelligently and with discussion. And I never make those sorts of accusations against people. Does my only editing Falun Gong pages mean I should be punished that much more severely? For something that many editors would not even consider problematic? It just seems like the decision is hard to evaluate or break down into its compontent parts and analyse, cause it’s like “this seems reasonable.” I don’t have a problem with that, I think Wikipedia should be like that in large part, but I hope you can add all these issues into the mix. On editing other pages[edit]I made it clear that I would like to edit other articles, but that I don't have much time left at the end of the day, and that these are a priority. It was never said to me in a serious way, only as a smear, that it was any problem to only edit my main area of interest. If someone had clarified this, I could have actually done some other useful things in my wiki time. I've got a couple of dozen books here on Chinese politics, governance, and history, and I'm keen to contribute in those areas, but since the Falun Gong pages have been such a biased mess recently (historically it has swung back and forth, and part of that is my fault) I've been spending a few spare hours every couple of days to work on them to the exclusion of other issues. (note: the strong interest in China and China topics is relatively recent for me. I came to wikipedia to edit the Falun Gong pages. Some years later a lot of things have changed and I want to make a broader contribution.) Final part[edit]Originally you thought there was nothing actionable, but after Enric provided a series of points and diffs, you thought it was actionable by a six month ban. However, I didn’t get the opportunity to present my case on those points. I don’t understand that. Shouldn’t I have been given the chance to respond to those issues? Should I respond now? I would be happy to. The decision making process just seems a little opaque right now. I would maybe gently suggest that a larger body of arbitrators be called on to look at the evidence, and discuss it together to see if this is really the best way of handling the situation. This isn't just my case, but for many different editors, and the Falun Gong pages long term. And I will probably consider opening an AE against Colipon along the same lines as this one when all this concludes. It's a wider kind of issue at play. Anyway, now for the good part. I have a suggestion that is maybe a little unique but I think could really work. Please consider it carefully. Since it was not known to me that it was actually a problem to edit only my main area of interest, and there's no real evidence that I've done anything actually wrong in terms of content or whatever—or, let’s say, I’m at least on par with anyone else who has bothered to stick around—and since sanctions are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then why not just make it that I have to have some certain ratio of substantive non-Falun Gong edits? If this is the only actual issue in my editing, then just fix it. I would really like this, because it would motivate me to edit these other areas which I really enjoy, but which I keep putting off because I use my wiki time on the Falun Gong articles, which I consider a priority. This would put me in the same category as Ohconfucius and whoever else, who, when editing the Falun Gong pages do so from their own version of NPOV, not often breaking rules--but the only difference is that they edit other stuff. So just make me edit other stuff. It's going to be a net loss for the encyclopedia otherwise. And please let me know whether I should respond to the points Enric raises.--Asdfg12345 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Asdfg12345[edit]Enric Naval, while I won't dismiss this out of hand (as there may indeed be a case worth taking action here), this is not currently presented in an actionable form. Please understand that administrators will normally base their review on the evidence that you provide, and that evidence is currently limited to two diffs ([93], [94]), none of which is prima facie evidence of disruptive editing. The rest of your long comments about the supposed misconduct by Asdfg12345 are entirely unactionable as long as they are unsupported by diffs. Also, this is a board dedicated toarbitration enforcement, so any argument based on the premise that ArbCom was wrong will not result in any action here. If you think ArbCom is wrong, you would need to make a new request for arbitration and try to convince them. Sandstein 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223[edit]The SPA Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a textbook case of WP:TEND. Asdfg constantly makes mass reverts to the FLG group articles and then throws up text-walls, insisting that before any reverts happen his points must be addressed in full. This is not how Wikipedia works. It is the responsibility of the editor making changes to justify edits. When 21 edits are made to an article, by a single editor, in under an hour this is even more the case. I will be honest. I have given up on trying to work with Asdfg12345. There is no working with Asdfg12345 unless you are willing to accept the FLG is entirely right and the PRC is a bunch of evil, organ stealing demons. If the goal of wikipedia is to have neutral articles based on the four pillars this will not be attained on the FLG articles as long as Asdfg12345 is editing FLG articles. I entirely support this requested action regardless of what happens to my own ability to edit FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) As I write this Asdfg12345 has once more restored the POV-pushing edits that are at the heart of this issue: [95]. Statement by Ohconfucius[edit]I have previously enjoyed a fruitful, if occasionally tense, editing relationship with asdfg, which enabled Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident to be taken to GA in late 2008. He is generally less prone to advocacy and edit-warring than the other Falun Gong SPAs I have dealt with, and also less likely to engage in filibustering and lawyering. That is not to say he is not often verbose to get his point across, and I have acquired a certain respect for him. Asdfg has been away from editing for 3 months, and has only been partly active for 3 months prior to that. During his absence, and free from the disruption and hindrance of Olaf Stephanos and Dilip rajeev to ensure that the articles are totally non-critical of the Dafa, considerable effort has been made by me and others to improve the articles with new sources, and to redress the very obvious pro-FLG bias. The articles need a lot of attention, as do all growth-phase articles do. Asdfg has returned, and has since begun to roll his sleeves up. However, due to the presence of other editors new to the topic, the editing dynamic is quite different. I note that asdfg has been frustrated on several counts recently, which I fully understand, and left him a friendly note informing his actions might be construed as drive-by reverting. Usually, when I worked with him previously, he stops when I point out when he has been excessive. Although his reverts may have abated, he has been quite insistent on some points which he seemed to want to push through despite opposition. It's not always helpful that Happy is always there riding shotgun with his reverts with considerably less discussion, making it seem like tag teaming, and always answering you with a question. This is all I can say for now, because I dropped Falun Gong articles from my watchlist after realising that I needed some distance from the subject. I informed him of this, and he gave me the impression he would follow my lead. I intend to stay away a little while longer, so with the exception to giving evidence about Happy, this may well be the last I have to say on the subject for a while. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Colipon[edit]The reason Asdfg should have been banned a long time ago is that he has a conflict-of-interest with the subject. In the end, he is not interested in improving this encyclopedia, but to advance the interests of Falun Gong. This is why he has come into conflict with so many previously uninvolved observers on these articles. Despite his civil facade and repeated denials, it takes at most one or two threads of discussion before an outsider to the Falun Gong wikispace realizes that Asdfg is not editing in good faith. Recently, since the ban of fellow Falun Gong adherent Olaf Stephanos, Asdfg has become more careful in not violating the letter of the arbitration while willfully violating its principles. Only those who haven't dealt with the Falun Gong articles will believe his defences. It would be naive at this point to not carry out a topic-ban. Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Mrund[edit]Asdfg12345 is an unabashed single-purpose account dedicated to polishing Falun Gong's image. He does so with such round-the-clock dedication that I can only conclude that his employer allows him to patrol Wikipedia during office hours. It would not hurt Wikipedia in any way if he were banned. My opinion of HappyInGeneral is similar. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by PCPP[edit]I have edited with Asdfg since 2007, and my experience is a mixed one. Asdfg began editing Wikipedia with the intent of promoting FLG's agendas, as shown by his comments on user talks pages, [96] [97][98] [99], and here he claimed that he edits Wikipedia to "save people from the Chinese Communist Party before it's destroyed". The problem is that Asdfg and Happy, as well as others like Olaf and Dilip, has formed a tag team that have de-facto control of the concensus in the FLG articles, and as such any attempts to add material critical of FLG would be met with reverts through the sheer weight of force [100] [101] [102]. His reverts are often blanket reverts, dismissing whole revisions because one or two sentences are not to his liking [103], and often anything that is sourced from the PRC government [104], and often wikilawyers his way out by dismissing them as propaganda. As such, I think a block of a set length would be appropriate so that he can understand wikipedia policies better and cool down about the FLG material.--PCPP (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Asdfg12345[edit]
Much of the evidence now provided is difficult to recognize, at least for me, as the sort of disruption that normally results in sanctions. Editors should remember that arbitration enforcement, like the arbitration process itself, is a venue for discussing conduct, not content, and administrators will not impose sanctions in order to decide content disagreements. It becomes clear, though, that Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account dedicated to editing articles related to Falun Gong so as to make that movement appear in a more favorable light, and that he has repeatedly participated in edit wars to that purpose. In his most recent 500 edits I cannot see one that is unrelated to Falun Gong. In view of the ArbCom's findings at WP:AFLG#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:AFLG#Point of view editing this general mode of editing constitutes disruptive conduct. It also indicates that Asdfg12345 is more committed to promoting Falun Gong than to our encyclopedic mission, which makes his contributions detrimental to that mission. For these reasons, unless other administrators disagree during the next day or so, I intend to impose a six month topic ban on Asdfg12345. Sandstein 19:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
|
HappyInGeneral[edit]
| HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) topic-banned from Falun Gong and related topics and discussions for six months. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning HappyInGeneral[edit]
The 2007 arb case failed to pass a finding that HappyInGeneral was edit-warring, by one vote, here, and a one-year revert parole also failed by one vote here. HappyInGeneral is a self-declared practitioner of Falun Gong[113]. A person with this COI shouldn't be edit-warring stuff that os directly related to the reputation of the discipline that he practices. HappyInGeneral supports Asdfg12345 in all the edits that he makes and in all the discussions. They behave like a tag team, they revert back the edits of each other. Nobody reverts back Asdfg12345 edits back into the articles, except for this account. HappyInGeneral insists that other editors must explain why they revert Asdfg12345, while no demand is ever made that Asdfg12345 explains his bold edits after he gets reverted.
Discussion concerning HappyInGeneral[edit]Statement by HappyInGeneral (2)[edit]Hello, I reviewed the diff. I read the comments. In my experience and based on WP:TRUTH people on Wikipedia will come with different point of views. Which is all fine. And we can all work together as long as we discuss the content of the article rationally. In my case against Simonm223 above, I complained with substantiated diffs exactly against the fact that he comes only with a strong point of view with quite some original researches, but he does not discuss the blanket reverts that he makes based on the merit of the content and the sources used, instead he makes comments about the contributor, over and over again, which naturally goes against WP:NPA. And now the diffs that Enric give as evidence against me, well I think that shows exactly how I ask from time to time for such a discussion to happen. For example in the latest diff presented I'm asking Simonm223 to engage in discussion of the content rather then blind reverts, and I even point out to him where exactly can he do that. And if you take a look at the rest of diffs presented: [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] you might notice the same behavior from my part while there is no discussion on the talk page, just strong minded reverts, without substantiated discussion. When blind reverts like this are happening, I can only come here to present my case, because there is no argument to be used at the NPOV, Reliable Source, etc. noticeboards. Regarding WP:COI: To put things into the right perspective read this: "I wander if mechanic should not edit the pages related to mechanics, even if he sources them with reliable sources just because he says he is a mechanic." The point is that people edit the pages they have interest in. Everybody has a POV and as long as the Persecution in China is going on and it is fueled by the biggest and meanest propaganda machine on earth, there will be no shortage in critics of Falun Gong, only on Wikipedia we might have a chance ask them to play by the rules. So who really has COI in this case? Well to find that answer I guess the right question is:
I think Simon is one such person so I did provide the diffs for it. Maybe you can form an opinion about 2 other such editors present on this page, based on their comments, and I can assure you there are a few more.
Please don't take this against me. I have said before and I'll say it now, on Wikipedia there are all kind of people with all kinds of ideas, per WP:NPOV and WP:RS all the relevant ideas should be presented, this makes this encyclopedia healthy. For this all I'm asking is a rational point by point discussion and not blind reverts. If I got something wrong, please point it out. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Enric: Regarding the IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing: This is an excellent point to bring up. And actually this is a better diff. Basically Enric failed to point out how have I failed answer him, and if you do read that section you will notice that I did answer every point that I should have, while I did take my time to repeat the question to the point it out the best as I can my question to him, to which he just dismissed the question as it would a "game". So my question is who is playing the IDIDNTHEARTHAT thing? If you have time please evaluate and let me know. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Enric: Just now I noticed, you used this diff to show that I'm a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. It is a bit curios why you didn't you just not use my User:HappyInGeneral page, that statement is up there since I joined Wikipedia, and I view that as being honest. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Simomn: Sorry if you took that personally. I did not say a word about you, I only gave an official source from the House of Commons who are saying that the directive from the CCP is: "Destroy their reputation, bankrupt them financially and annihilate them physically.". Considering how huge the CCP propaganda machine is I would be surprised if there would not be anyone at least influenced by it to further it's message. Now you will notice that I'm only speaking my mind, and I'm not providing any evidence against you or anyone here in particular. I'm just pointing out what is the context of the subject is right now so people who might not have lived in or near mainland China can understand the context. Best Regards. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Ohconfucius: Quoting you "The deceptively large number of different articles". My question to you: How did I deceive anyone? This edit counter shows precisely which are the article that have my main interest. My problem with your edit is that you are continuing to engage in bad faith negative comments against me, holding against me even air if you could. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Colipon: Can you give me an example where genuine NPOV edits is difficult because of me? Thanks. @Administrators: Please check out the massive content loss at the Persecution of Falun Gong page. The Diff looks like this because at one point the persecution page was even renamed into History of Falun Gong. The persecution page survived, only because in it's deletion no consensus was reached, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Falun Gong and that is because I invited a few more uninvolved editors to join the talk. Otherwise I alone might have been successfully gunned out. The same pattern of deluding the fact happened while moving out of the view the:
Thus if it is possible to get more neutral editors to this topic, I would be immensely appreciative. But until then let's at least keep civil and discuss the content not the editor. If that is achieved, Wikipedia will win and I don't care then if Simomn223 is banned or not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Simon I understand that I was complaining that you where talking without any base, so I guess should not do the same. See here some sources:
And again even if you get upset about this you should have no reason, because I'm not saying that this source relates to you. On the other hand I'm saying that these things exist per WP:RS. And I'm saying another very important thing. You will see me providing this "context" only on the arbitration pages, on the talk pages you will see me only discussing about the content and about the sources. If we can get into this cycle we can do something good for this encyclopedia. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Administrator: Please let me know if there is anything I missed and I should clarify. Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) @Administrator: Wikipedia, is not a battleground, I see, and I fully agree since I do believe in talk. Under this spirit, I'm sorry to have fueled such an environment. I think I did strike out all those remarks, however if I missed something, please point it out and I'll fix it. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC) @Administrator: No matter what the outcome may be, will you in the end have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts? As I see it this is the only way to ensure to improve Wikipedia. Thanks. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The latest example (food for thought):
In my understanding Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where we should evaluate the merit of the edits, not blindly push forward or defend a certain view. And that is why I would like to know if you consider to have something in place that will reward discussion and discourage blind reverts. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning HappyInGeneral[edit]Comment by Asdfg12345[edit]Nothing substantial to add. Basically, what we are seeing are content disputes. But calls for discussion are being ignored, and instead things are being reverted and labels being thrown around. This isn't what wikipedia is about. People have to discuss things, refer to sources, etc. I'm confused by this whole thing, really. I'm not aware of what rules HappyInGeneral has violated; Enric doesn't list them. Reverting reverts of my edits? Is that out-and-out wrong? What if that was justified? What if I added relevant, sourced material and someone removed it without discussion? I don't see how this is a criteria. Of course, tag teaming and bad behaviour should be sanctioned, but it's totally unclear what's wrong in these cases. Show me some policies he's broken. Show me some diffs of disruptive editing. If HappyInGeneral was restoring mindless deletions of anyone else's edits, I'd support him there, too. The complaint seems quite vague to me, and appears to be based on a kind of feeling rather than solid evidence of wrongdoing. Some specific points: HappyInGeneral doesn't have a COI; I've explained all my edits, both on talk page and in edit summary, and done my best to encourage discussion. Both of us should edit a wider variety of pages, I agree. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing here.--Asdfg12345 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Simonm223[edit]Contrary to Asdfg12345's statement HappyInGeneral has a very strong CoI. Although Happy has participated productively in other areas of Wikipedia, whenever it comes to FLG articles the pro-FLG POV takes over. Although not as disruptive as Asdfg12345 HappyInGeneral has not assisted in bringing neutrality to the FLG articles. Simonm223 (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Ohconfucius[edit]The deceptively large number of different articles edited by him are the result of his acquiring and using automated tools to perform gnoming tasks around WP. However, in terms of actually contributing to content, Happy is, to all intents and purposes, a single purpose account. One very good example of his advocacy is above. Then, there is this series of edits which was used material from SPS or COI (e.g. Epoch Times) sources. However, I would give him some credit for not rolling it back to this final version created by fellow practitioner in which all the criticism was expunged. To illustrate the dynamic on most of the FLG articles, I cite a conflict has been going on for quite some time—over the exact date of birth of Li Hongzhi, and thus the appropriateness of using the word 'claim':
In other cases, an evangelical tendency will not generally brush with WP:COI. However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, the propensity of Falun Gong practitioners to go out and proselytise and defend the Dafa with zeal and force is a trait which needs to to be experienced to be comprehended. Happy's vociferousness in this connection is harmful to the editing ambiance at these 'paroled' articles because (I suspect) he feels he embodies the Dafa. While I can handle one Falun Gong editor at a time, I find the presence of a second, operating as Happy does, extremely distracting and disruptive. The reason why I am less sympathetic to Happy and more so to Asdfg is that I feel the latter can edit with sufficient detacthment, whereas Happy cannot. It would do Happy no harm to spend short time away from Falun Gong; he should gain some experience contributing content to other articles instead of point-pushing when he is too close to the subject. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) As to the "massive content loss at the Persecution of Falun Gong page", it must be noted that instead of one article, there are now two, one called 'History of Falun Gong', and a newer 'Persecution of Falun Gong' article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC) It seems that there may be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make about the dynamic interaction. I just picked out the word 'claim' because it is a good illustrative example which is easily missed if not pointed out. The sensitivity of Falun Gong practitioners to any criticism of their master's teachings is legend. Of course there are major disagreements about text and sources and what constitutes a reliable source. I wanted to illustrate that quite a lot of the warring takes place on a low, semantic level too. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Colipon[edit]There is no doubt in my mind that HappyInGeneral has always been a single-purpose account, despite his recent leanings towards automated wiki-tools, which was ostensibly set up to curb the notion that he is a Falun Gong SPA. While Happy has certainly been less destructive than Asdfg in his edits, the presence of both editors makes NPOV editing extremely difficult. Statement by Mrund[edit]HappyInGeneral is an unabashed single-purpose account dedicated to polishing Falun Gong's image. S/he does so with such round-the-clock dedication that I can only conclude that hes employer allows hem to patrol Wikipedia during office hours. It would not hurt Wikipedia in any meaningful way if s/he were banned, as all the constructive work s/he does is automated cleaning. My opinion of Asdfg12345 is similar. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by PCPP[edit]There is little to say about this editor, who does not try to hide the fact that he is a FLG activist. His user page is basically a violation of WP:USER by advocating for FLG propaganda, and his editing history concurs. Even in this very page, he is involved in WP:ADVOCACY and WP:LAWYER, showing that currently he is obviously not interested in editing the FLG articles in accordance with WP:NPOV. --PCPP (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Abrazame[edit]I fail to see why the change from someone claiming they have a certain birthdate to someone saying they have a certain birthdate is the sort of thing one notes in support of what ultimately seems to be shaping up to be a six-month topic ban. "Claim" sounds to be the more POV phrasing in this case, and HappyInGeneral's choice of the other phrase seems perfectly reasonable (he apparently referenced the change to a Time magazine interview that gave the date context). I'm not intimately involved in any of this, but after viewing some of the diffs here it seems that there should be some more productive way to arbitrate this. I presume there have been short-term topic bans; is there a way to limit the number of edits per article per day or week? Isn't that really what is desired here? My only experience with this issue was a Neutral point of view/Noticeboard thread where it seemed that the POV was going in decidedly the opposite direction than is currently being claimed (or, as some surely prefer, said), HappyInGeneral being the forthright party accurately representing refs and definitions and coming up against the enforcement of a POV party line. With topics so profoundly loaded, we need to take extreme care to ensure that we aren't prohibiting a user who is a balancing force on a scale that would in his absence tip further askew — especially as an allegedly similar editor seems to be about to be topic-banned for the same six months in the previous thread here. I note the respondent in the administrative section below and hope that those administrators officially weighing in on this will take the time to understand the sensitivity of this issue and the substance of the argument against HIG, and see if there isn't any more constructive way of getting it through to all parties involved that reverting claims to says and back sounds more like a petty interpersonal issue deserving a reprimand than it does a problematic edit justifying a six-month topic ban. I don't know if every point in this diff included by the OP was discussed on that article's talk page as HappyInGeneral requested, but most of the changes he makes do not strike me as objectionable POV. Again, if the idea is that HIG reverts too frequently or makes more edits than can reasonably be reviewed, perhaps the best answer is to limit the number of edits he's allowed to make per day, so that he learns to fully and concisely state his case about a change (and, in return, his edits need to actually be objectionable POV to be castigated and reverted as such). Abrazame (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning HappyInGeneral[edit]
As with Asdfg12345 above, the evidence submitted (especially the edit counter) and a review of his contributions indicates that, when HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs) is not making automated vandalism reverts, he edits articles with a view to making them more sympathetic to Falun Gong. Like Asdfg12345, he is also involved in edit wars on the topic, which matches the finding of a majority of arbitrators voting on the case back in 2007 ([124]). In addition, it is of great concern to me that in this very forum he is making comments ([125]) that can be reasonably read only as insinuating that those who disagree with him are agents or tools of the Chinese Communist Party. This is in direct conflict with the Committee's reminder, at WP:AFLG#Wikipedia is not a battleground, that "Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." For these reasons, if no administrator colleagues disagree, I intend to impose a six months topic ban on HappyInGeneral as well, with the additional reminder that any violations may result in an extension of the ban to indefinite, or lengthy blocks, or both. Sandstein 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Radeksz[edit]
| Radeksz (talk · contribs) is warned not to leave aggressive messages related to topics from which he is banned. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Radeksz[edit]
Discussion concerning Radeksz[edit]Statement by Radeksz[edit]Go ahead and block away. The posts on Matthead's page should've been sent as personal emails and were meant as a "let's be honest here" kind of frank talk.radek (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Re:henrik. Yes.radek (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz[edit]
Is this request really necessary. It is evident from Radeksz's recent edit history that he not only fully abides by his restrictions, but also contributes in a very positive and commendable way to topic areas in dire need of attention. Pantherskin (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Radeksz has redacted his comments[129], which is commendable. Radeksz, can we get an assurance that you'll phrase yourself more politely in the future? (i.e. not using terms like "assholes" or "quasi-Nazi")? henrik•talk 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Matthead's behaviour has been rather provocative of late in the Polish topic space, for example, contentiously disputing on Talk:Poles and Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus that Copernicus was not Polish here and here, even though the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica clearly and unambiguously acknowledges Copernicus to be Polish [130]. My reading of Radek's comment on Matthead's talk page is that it was a plea that it is possible to collaborate more substantively and meaningfully with Polish editors rather than persist in these petty nationalist claims that mainstream sources do not support nor add value to the encyclopedia. --Martin (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Radek's comment was most probably a plea for Matthead to co-operate. However, calling other editors "quasi-Nazis" is entirely unacceptable, especially when addressed to a German editor. I also feel it is unacceptable to claim that Matthead was somehow 'asking for it' as Marting does in his statement above.Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A very shocking provocation by Matthead designed to bait Polish editors [131] Copernicus was about as Polish as Jesus was Italian - or less. Dr. Loosmark 12:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Radeksz[edit]
The user talk comments at issue were probably not technically in violation of the ban, since the ban only applies to articles, article talk pages and process discussions concerning these. They have also been undone. Therefore I don't think enforcement action is required here. But the comments were aggressive and violate the purpose of the topic ban, which is to get Radeksz to disengage from the subject. Radeksz is therefore warned not to pull such stunts again or he may be made subject to more comprehensive and/or longer sanctions. The commenting editors Martintg and Loosmark are also warned that they may be banned from commenting in Eastern Europe AE threads not concerning themselves if they continue to make statements that are not useful for the single purpose of helping administrators determine whether sanctions are needed against the editor who is the subject of the request. In particular, allegations of misconduct by the reporting editor are not relevant to an AE thread, but should be reported in a separate request if (and only if) they require enforcement action, or else they belong to dispute resolution, for which AE is not a forum. AE is also not a venue in which to pursue or discuss silly nationalist content disputes such as about the nationality of astronomers. Sandstein 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
517design[edit]
| 517design (talk · contribs) placed under ARBAA2 supervision. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning 517design[edit]
Discussion concerning 517design[edit]Statement by 517design[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning 517design[edit]Once again the lamentable failings of Wikipedia administrators rear their ugly heads. Long ago, rather than properly address the issue, they concocted the disgraceful AA2 sanctions. And how they love those sanctions, it gives them the excuse to swing their tiny little banhammers around like a baby with its toys. The result is that anyone who regularly edits articles related to the sanctions will INEVITABLY find themselves under AA2 sanctions and then be severely limited in their editing. Parallel to this, complete newcomers to the subject (or to Wikipedia) can come and make as many reverts and additions as they like - good or bad, but all sanction free. This is the core reason behind Grandmaster's complaint. It is not that the edits by 517design are disruptive, it is that 517design needs to be put on the same level as all other editors working on AA2 related articles. Meanwhile, the same old problems continue, but at a rate of 1 revert a week rather than 3 a day, and articles are always at risk of drive-by anonymous edits that regular editors can't revert because they would be breaking sanctions. Administrators think that is a good solution. What I think of administrators can't be said here. Meowy 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning 517design[edit]
|
Neftchi[edit]
| Neftchi (talk · contribs) blocked for 72 hours and required to provide rationale on talk page when reverting (except for blatant vandalism). Meowy (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from commenting on any Armenia or Azerbaijan arbitration enforcement request (on any page) not related to him. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Neftchi[edit]
Discussion concerning Neftchi[edit]Statement by Neftchi[edit]I undid the removal of a large section of sourced material from the article, which was not discussed and agreed at talk, and such removal is pretty much the same thing as vandalism. See here for the removal by MarshallBagramyan. I just restored sourced material that was removed without any discussion or consensus, and invited those who removed it to discuss it at talk first. Admins should not encourage such POV edits as removal of large chunks of text without consensus. Neftchi (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Neftchi[edit]
Result concerning Neftchi[edit]
Reverting without discussion is one of the more destructive things one can do to the collaborative spirit needed to successfully build articles, especially in areas of nationalistic or ethnic strife. All recent editors have shown a lack of collaborative spirit, using terms like "propaganda" "obnoxious" and "lies" in edit summaries of Azerbaijani culture, while the talk page has astoundingly had just one single edit since June, made after this request was posted. I hope all parties will reconsider their own behavior. However, this is a clear violation of the revert restriction imposed by Moreschi, and Neftchi's statement does not give a convincing rationale why this violation was necessary. Per Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement I have suspended Neftchi's editing privileges for 72 hours. Also, Neftchi is for the duration of the revert restriction required to post a note on the talk page explaining his rationale whenever he reverts any article in the subject area, excepting cases of blatant vandalism. henrik•talk 21:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
Ashill55[edit]
| Ashill55 (talk · contribs) is a new user and should be reached out to rather than templated. No enforcement actions necessary at this time. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ashill55[edit]
Discussion concerning Ashill55[edit]The same editor was editing as 88.108.156.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) prior to creating an account. The editor is a single purpose account dedicated to inserting the same unsourced wording that is seemingly contradicted by the reliable source already cited in the article, and edit warring to retain it. I am not interested which methods administrators use to deal with this matter, providing the editor stops edit warring to add unsourced content. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Ashill55[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Ashill55[edit]Result concerning Ashill55[edit]
|
Sulmues[edit]
| Sulmues (block log) blocked for 1 week and 3-month civility suspension reset; will end on April 26, 2010. Athenean (talk · contribs) is encouraged to limit interaction with Sulmues. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Sulmues[edit]
Back in December, this user was placed under the following 3 month civility supervision [149] by User:Moreschi for outbursts such as these [150] [151] [152]. Since then, he has continued posting trolling comments such as these [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] (the "Trojan Horse" is a reference to Greek editors), calling me a vandal [171], while here [172] he is making the false accusation that Albania had to be protected because of "vandalism" on my part, when in fact it was *I* who requested semi-protection [173] because the article was plagued by IPs. Here is talking smack [174] [175] [176] [177] in Albanian with the indef-blocked User:Lceliku (translation available on Google Translate). Particularly odious is his restoration of this TOV by User:Lceliku [178] with the mendacious excuse that the guy "welcomed" me and I "banned" him. When I became irate [179] [180] over this, his response was to mock me [181] [182]. Lately, he is also now falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR [183] [184] when in fact I did no such thing. Here he is trying to disrupt an SPI I have filed [185] [186] by somehow implying that I'm anti-Albanian and that therefore the checkuser should take this into account. The final straw, however, was that even though Moreschi explicitly warned him that further accusations of vandalism against me would constitute a breach of his revert parole and hence would be blockable [187], he has continued to do so [188] [189]. There is a clear pattern here of incivility, bad faith assumptions, trolling, and personal attacks since he has been put on civility parole. This is intolerable and has got to stop. I originally posted at ANI but was told by Sandstein to come here. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Sulmues[edit]Statement by Sulmues[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues[edit]Just to save time I'll copy from what I said on AN/I after seeing this: I have to admit looking at all of the diffs (and digging through contributions for quite a while) that it looks like both of you have been a little hot headed and it may be better served for you guys to just back away from each other. Sulmues may be throwing words like vandal around a bit loosely but I can't deny that it does appear you are following him around a bit as well (just recently accusing him of being a banned user here) and taking barnstars off of his userpage is a bit much. Too much wikilawyering is not good in the longrun. While as Athenean said he was not under civility warning and Sulmues was I have to admit that looking at everything I'm kind of shocked they both weren't under one. There is no doubt that Sulmues has been a bit hot headed but there the fact that he is under a warning does not give someone the right to fan the flames and try to get a response and then cry foul if you get one. In many ways the new user welcome you just linked does not seem far from the mark. If it is decided that Sulmues needs a short block because of the previous warning I can understand that but to be honest I think what is most needed is a strong warning for both editors to back away from each other and they should both be held accountable when they do not. While Athenean has been quick to claim he is being harassed by Sulmues it strongly appears that it goes both ways and very well may be that Athenean is doing more. I'll repeat what I said when this was only at AN/I why don't you both sit down. James (T|C) 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Sulmues[edit]
Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
Jaakobou[edit]
| No action. Jaakobou (talk · contribs) reminded not to use provocative terms needlessly and to be mindful of maintaining a positive editing environment. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jaakobou[edit]
A couple of other related threads (2009):
User:Ynhockey has found a diff attesting to inappropriate talk page commentary of my own at another page from about 10 days ago. I admit that comment was needlessly belligerent and that the personal anecdote, while interesting, is not relevant to article improvement discussion. I apologize for having degraded the quality of the discussion. Tiamuttalk 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC) @Henrik, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't implying that Sandstein had no right to be involved. Only that I would prefer that he didn't handle the case himself. He is of course free to refuse that request. Tiamuttalk 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I would also suggest to anyone reviewing this case that they take the trouble to read through at least some of the AE requests, and the two most recent threads (Wikiquette alert and WP:AN complaint). I realize it is a lot to review, but the background is relevant. Tiamuttalk 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC) @Pantherskin, I'm not trying to harass Jaakobou. This is the third time I've filed an AE complaint regarding his behaviour, but the first request was acted upon and the second resulted in a warning, so its not exactly like they were frivolous complaints. Its possible that I'm reading more into Jaakobou's comments than is there because of our lengthy and rather toxic history of interactions. But its also quite possible that my complaint of being hounded by him, for being a Palestinian and not sharing his POV, is a legitimate one. If you look at the AE complaints filed by El C and by me and review the Wikiquette alert, I think you will see that there is evidence for a pattern of harassment characterized by bigoted talk page commentary that is designed to push buttons. I have tried my best to ignore this over the last little while, but its happened too many times for me to just turn the other cheek. Tiamuttalk 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Question to the admins watching this page: Are the normal rules of engagement suspended at AE? Because in the comments below by editors (four of whom I have had content disagreements with), I see an awful lot of bad faith speculation bordering on personal attacks, with a dash of soapboxing just to spice it up a little. I'm trying to be gracious, but its gotten a little out of hand, no? Tiamuttalk 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) @Ynhockey, "bigoted talk page commentary" is a fair description, given the conclusions made by uninvolved editors in this Wikiquette alert. Tiamuttalk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) @Sandstein, as to why the use of "muqawama" is a problem, as Gatoclass perceptively points out, to Jaakobou, the term is equivalent to "terrorism". So when he is calling me a "muqawama apologist", he is actually calling me an apologist for terrorism. Much as Okedem, in his comments, suggest I am a Hamas apologist. These are bad faith assumptions as to my motive in editing and amount to personal attacks. Furthermore, when he uses the term three time in two days, after he agreed not to use it three weeks previous, it is, as Gatoclass notes, a form of harassment. Tiamuttalk 14:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) @Cptnono, I started User:Tiamut/muqawama after discussions with Jaakobou made it clear that it was being misconceived as solely a synonym for terrorism. It actually covers a wide spectrum of resistance actions, as you can read there (its still a work in progress though). As for the res of your comment, I would once again like to remind you to stop using my user page (or identity) as evidence of bad faith on my part, as you have in the past [219]. While Jaakobou claims that my primary contributions to the Avigdor Lieberman article have been to revert him, a quick review of my edits there will show this description is rather incomplete, as I made an effort to forge compromise formulations, and participated heavily on talk to that end. A review of Jaakobou's last 6 article edits there, show that 4 were either wholly or essentially reverts to include the words "which advocates the destruction of Israel", after the words "Hamas". [220] [221] [222] [223] This sentence fragment was first added by Jaakobou on April 9, 2009 [224], with the edit summary "rm death sentence hyperbole and clarify the context of Hamas' agenda with the accusation of treason". Please note that the source cited does not use these words to describe Hamas, and reports without mincing words that Lieberman explicitly called for the execution of Arab MKs who met wih Hamas. With the alteration of his statement here, Jaakobou also accuses me of using "a euphemism" to describe violence against Jews at the Muhammad al-Durrah incident. This is a misleading statement that assumes bad faith, despite the fact that I explained the reasons for my change of "rioting" to "unrest" in the lead of the article on the talk page. Please further note that the sentence in question is not explicitly discussing violence against Jews, but rather refers to the general climate on the day that Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year old boy, was shot and killed.[225] That said, I have no intention of whitewashing anything, and in light of the substance of Jaakobou's edits to the Avigdor Lieberman article, such an accusation seems rather hypocritical. Tiamuttalk 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jaakobou[edit]Statement by Jaakobou[edit]For starters, I couldn't have hounded Tiamut to Muhammad al-Durrah incident, where I've contributed over 160 edits while she contributed less than 15. The same goes for the Israeli politician (Avigdor Lieberman) page where I've made about 150 edits while her contributions amount to 6; mostly reverts on the Hamas descriptive.[227][228][229] I have found Tiamut to be disruptive and confrontational on multiple Israel-related articles recently. If it were this anti-Zionist/Israel commentary on the Israel talkpage here, or a pro-Hamas/Hezbollah (antisemitic organizations[230][231][232]) attitude on talkpages[233] and article space (see above) and her userpage.[234][235] Also, Tiamut is making a very serious misrepresentation here on arbitration enforcement by neglecting to mention vital information.
In the second case she filed, there were 5 admins objecting any action, supporting that my conduct was well within proper etiquette and PhilKnight's quick move to ignore them and file a warning to me was just as quickly noted as a faulty assessment of the case by two other admins.[237][238] Similar misrepresentations occur too often whenever Tiamut mentions me which makes for a very uncomfortable feeling. Tiamut is also erroneous in her understanding of Arabic. 'Muqawama' is a culture of popular sentiments and not "actions" as she states here. Knowing the full breadth of cultural meaning behind the term, I do not use is as a synonym for terrorism. It is an extremely common term and there's nothing to take offense from its usage. My use of the word "apologetics" in reference to an edit I was in strong disagreement with was probably not optimal though. Tiamut inserted an inherently improper euphemism - here 12 - for assaults made on Jews in Israel by Palestinians (Second Intifada) and I was trying to make a clear and precise note of the issue without writing endlessly about it. This complaint seems to be about a wiki-hounding and harassment claims over two articles Tiamut barely touched and a common Palestinian terminology used in reference to content discussions. The complaint uses a big list of events from as far as 2 years ago, most of which between me and banned editors -- friends of Tiamut. This list neglects samples where Tiamut was warned by 2 uninvolved admins for improper behavior[239] and her being chastised by 2 other high profile contributors (both are admins as well) for poor talkpage conduct.[240][241] Putting these together, I feel some form of breach of the final decision had occurred. Comment regarding Gatoclass' notes: Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou[edit]Comment by Sandstein[edit]This request lacks a signature and a notification diff and cannot be processed. It is strongly recommended to use the template {{Sanction enforcement request}} for such requests, as instructed in the header. Also, the specific remedy that was violated or under which action is requested should be cited if possible. Sandstein 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've looked at the evidence that Tiamut provided and honestly don't know what ought to be done. Much seems to turn around the use of the word "muqawama", apparently translating to "resistance" and possibly having the connotation of "terrorism", but since I don't speak Arabic (or Hebrew) I don't really understand what the problem with the use of that word is. Arbitration enforcement is neither a venue for resolving content disagreements nor is it a substitute for dispute resolution. As to conduct issues, the only thing that's evident is that Tiamut and Jaakobou have a long history of conflict, but I can't tell who (if anybody) bears most of the blame for that. I can't immediately think of an enforcement measure that would be appropriate to the situation. My inclination would be to refer both editors to dispute resolution, but if these conflicts continue, a mutual interaction ban or something similar might be considered. Sandstein 06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Thomasbraun321[edit]I went to thank Jaakobou for some help on a link I wanted to add and noticed a link here. A look at Tiamut's personal page goes to show that they are organized to provoke anti-Isreali emotions, with links to articles hostile to Israel and some Palestinian apologetics, not based on facts. IMO, Jaakobou is 100% correct reintroducing the text he did and that Tiamut is pushing propaganda by suggesting that attacks on Jews are 'unrest' and then he complains against Jaakobou after the talkpage comments support Jaakobou. That is not an attitude of respect for historical truth and promotion of peace through mutual understanding. Lies will never enable peace. Thomasbraun321 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Ynhockey[edit]It appears that Tiamut is trying to turn a content dispute into another attempt to ban Jaakobou, just so that in the next attempt it would be possible to add another diff of "look, he was complained against so many times, so he must be doing something wrong" (note also that some of those complaints were made by banned editors). None of the "offending" diffs Tiamut posted break any policy, and the only traces of soapboxing I can see are actually in discussions between Tiamut and Jaakobou on user talk. By contrast, Tiamut does her share of soapboxing and often displays belligerent behavior on article talk. Here's one recent amusing example. Someone who makes a comment like that doesn't really have room to complain against problematic talk page behavior. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Henrik[edit]Note: I've reformatted this request into using the standard format for readability. I will wait for further statements before expressing an opinion. @Tiamut: As a general matter, having taken previous actions in arbitration enforcement cases does not mean that you are disqualified from taking actions in other cases involving the same editor or group of editors. If errors have been made, they can be addressed in appeals, which will be closed and reviewed by other administrators. henrik•talk 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Jiujitsuguy[edit]I am an uninvolved editor having never edited the article or articles in question. I have reviewed Tiamut’s complaint and I believe that it is baseless, grounded in bad faith and wholly without merit. Rather than being based on a legitimate grievance, Tiamut’s complaint appears to be an insidious attempt to censor content and silence Jaakobou simply because his view does not comport with hers.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Pantherskin[edit]I doubt that anything can be worked out here. Whether Jakoubou violated the spirit of remedy 4) and 5) is apparently in the eye of the beholder. There is no clear-cut violation, and it seems that his main offence was having a strong point of view. That of course is not forbidden, in fact it can be helpful in ensuring balance and quality in controversial topic areas. What I see though is a pattern of using arbcom enforcement request to harass one's opponents, thus ironically being in violation of the exact principles that are invoked in these requests.--Pantherskin (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Okedem[edit]I've seen nothing in the diffs that breaks any rules. Jaakobou sometimes uses strong language, but often that cannot be avoided. I find Tiamut's sixth claim particularly amusing (regarding [243]); is Tiamut here to defend Hamas' honor? The people who so often sent suicide bombers into buses and restaurants? This organization's charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in article seven, clearly calls for the murder of all Jews ("[...]the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."). Are we supposed to call them "freedom fighters" or something? I think that claim puts Tiamut's complaint in the proper light. okedem (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Regarding "muqawama" - I find it particularly troubling that Tiamut is trying to create the impression that the word "muqawama" is derogatory or biased. It is not a term like "terrorist", applied to some groups, which vehemently dispute it ("we're freedom fighters"). It is a word used by the people themselves, in a positive connotation (from their perspective). In fact, to call Hamas a "muqawama group" is even quite redundant - as their article can tell us, Hamas is "an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement"". Al-Manar, Hezbollah's TV station, calls itself "qanat al-muqawama" ("Station of the Resistance"). A couple of very simple examples for context - an Al Jazeera opinion column, praising the Muqawama, and an article explaining Hamas' rage when the Palestinian Authority dropped the word as a core principle. To pretend this word is derogatory is insulting to all of us. okedem (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Cptnono[edit]I'm not seeing anything actionable in the differences provided. It appears to be two editors getting on eachothers' nerves. The one concern I see is the use of edit summaries to make comments that come across inflammatory. Jaakobou (along with everyone else) should take care to not use edit summaries to make a point. A quick reminder and some monitoring should suffice.
Although turning this around to blame Tiamut might be appealing: this AE is regarding Jaakobou. He is accountable for is own actions. I think Tiamut should take notice of all the editors counter punching though. An editing style that draws so much criticism might mean something.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by FormerIP[edit]It does seem to me that "muqawama" is meant here as a derogatory epithet and it is reasonable for Tiamut to object. Regarding Cptnono's comment based on looking at her subpage - yes, but it is not entirely clear what the subpage is for. The term appears to me to have a literal Arabic meaning "resistance" and a different meaning as an adopted term in English, which is more akin to "terrorist", perhaps with additional connotations of ignorance and dogma thrown in (happy to be reliably corrected on this). Whilst Jaakobou has repeated the epithet, it is not entirely clear (AFAICT) that he has subsequently directed it at Tiamut in particular. However, given Tiamut's objection, I can't see why repeated use of the term is helpful. Perhaps the issue could be resolved by Jaakobou agreeing to use English where English will do. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass[edit]Jaakobou has a history of harassment with Tiamut, most notably with his parroting of an image Tiamut left on her talkpage that almost got him sitebanned. Tiamut apparently feels Jaakobou is using the word "muqawama" as a euphemism for "terrorism", and Jaakobou's own comments regarding the term indicate that is the case. Accusing Tiamut of "muqawama apologetics" is thereby equivalent to accusing her of "terrorist apologetics" which is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. I think Jaakobou needs to stick to his commitment not to use this term, which is not at all necessary since there are plenty of English alternatives that do not carry such offensive overtones. Continuing to do so after repeatedly being asked not to is going to look very much like another case of harassment in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Jaakobou[edit]
First of all: This is not a discussion of Tiamut's behavior. If an editor other than Jaakobou has breached provisions of an arbitration case, open a separate enforcement case. Otherwise take it to a dispute resolution forum. After having read this, I'm inclined to close this as not actionable. While Jaakobou's remarks did not reach the collegial nature I would expect of wikipedia editors, the cited remarks don't reach the severity where blocks or sanctions are merited. I would strongly urge Jaakobou to not use the term muqawama, and instead choose to use English terms, with more plain meanings. Likewise avoid discussing the outside motivations of editors and organizations. For what it is worth, I read the AN debate here as having a rough consensus for a three month topic ban, but it appears to never have been enacted. I would, again, urge Jaakobou to reconsider his editing approach, and preferably try to be a model of civility and collegiality, even and especially with editors with background and views from the other side of the I-P conflict. While individual cases and posts may sometimes not be individually actionable, a large number of cases of borderline conduct can over time amount to grounds for sanctions. I will await any comments from colleagues. If none are forthcoming, I intend to close this as no action in a reasonable timespan. henrik•talk 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
|